Ron Paul Wins CPAC Presidential Straw Poll

Rep. Ron Paul, hero of a fervant band of libertarians, unexpectedly won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference today, claiming 31% of the votes cast.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has carried the survey for the past three years, was second at 22%.

The straw poll is unscientific but is sometimes seen as a show of organizational strength among presidential hopefuls. However, Paul, who made a longshot bid for the Republican nomination in 2008, has given no indication he plans to run again.

“It is clear that Paul brought a lot of people” to CPAC, said Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, who ran the straw poll.Fabrizio said 2,395 of a reported 10,000 attendees voted. It was the most votes in the history of CPAC — about 40% higher than last year, he said.

co-opt (k-pt, kpt)tr.v. co-opt·ed, co-opt·ing, co-opts1. To elect as a fellow member of a group.2. To appoint summarily.3. To take or assume for one's own use; appropriate: co-opted the criticism by embracing it.4. To neutralize or win over (an independent minority, for example) through assimilation into an established group or culture: co-opt rebels by giving them positions of authority.[Latin cooptre : co-, co- + optre, to choose.]co-op·tation n.co-opta·tive (-t-tv) adj.co-option (-pshn) n.co-optive adj.

Good for Ron Paul. He is one of the Conservatives that I actually like, because at a minimum he still respects the U.S. Constitution.

Paul won with 31%, the largest margin of victory at one of these things in a while. Mittens Romney, who most reminds me of the Muppet game show host Guy Smiley on Sesame Street, was the runner up with 22%. The Palin only scored a mere 7%. One wonders who she'll blame for that.

But most hilarious is how Faux Nooz is treating this. Their responses have been variations on:

“It's way early.”“It is unscientific.”“It offers nothing more than bragging rights.”“The vote is not necessarily a good forecaster of conservatives' leanings nation wide.”

The point the boys and girls at Fox still haven't seemed to grasp is that the youth – such that it is – responds to Paul's message more than any of the douchebags that the party elites put up.

They like Paul for the same reason I like him, even though I'm not a Conservative. He has something all the hairdos at Fox don't — AUTHENTICITY.

Sometimes I agree with Ron Paul, sometimes I don't, but what I don't doubt is that he truly believes what he says, and that he's come to his beliefs not from a position of the kind of aggressive ignorance that has so exemplified Palin, but rather from having really looked at the issues, and reacting to them according to his principles.

That is someone who while he may vote against a measure someone like myself might put up, he also might vote FOR it, if I can make a good enough case for it.

In other words, the irony is the guy who has the nickname on Capital Hill as “Dr. No” because of how often he votes “nay” on things, is still better to work with than the majority of the Republican idiots on the Hill who just block things just to block them, not because they're standing on any real principles.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PDDVWRQVUPMKRGHURIEQVNYWHQ Sean

dream on, he isn't part of the game, expect hatchet jobs from the right and left.

5by5

Oh, I totally agree. The inverse of this was the treatment of Cynthia McKinney on the left. Even somebody like Bernie Sanders can't really run as who he is (a democratic socialist) because of our outmoded very narrow two-party definitions of “acceptability”. The best he can do is run as the non-committal “independent” candidate.

What people who really want to see more diversity in the voices in our politics need to do is two-fold.

First, they need to start at the bottom and work up. You have to have someone to caucus with to be a power-broker, but unless you have a large-scale locally-based infrastructure to support you, you're not going to have that. So greens or constitutionalists, or whatever your political persuasion, need to begin by winning local elections, and working up from there. You need to have the long view. Like 30 years before you start making large-scale impact. If you don't have the stomach for that, you pretty much need to shut up about whining about our system. It's going to take long-term commitment to change it.

Second, and most importantly, we need to get the option of run-off voting into every election both national and local, including the Presidency.

In a non-parliamentary system like ours we can't create “coalition” governments from two smaller parties the way they can in Canada, or Germany, or France, etc. So the solution to this is run-off voting. This allows you to vote for the candidate you REALLY want (ie. the TRUE Liberal or TRUE Conservative) that the larger, more stick-in-the-mud party elites may not want, without sacrificing your vote if that person doesn't get a majority, because your vote then automatically defaults to your SECOND choice.

In other words, If your first choice doesn't get enough of a percentage of the votes to win, your vote defaults to your second choice. Using the last couple Presidential elections as an example, say you want Ron Paul, but you don't want to throw your vote away to John Kerry, so if Paul doesn't get enough votes, your FINAL vote gets counted for your second choice, George Bush.

This works the same way on the left. If you REALLY want Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, you can vote for them, and have your vote go to Al Gore or Barack Obama if they don't gain a majority, and not fear that your vote will get tossed and give George Bush an edge.

5by5

Oh, I totally agree. The inverse of this was the treatment of Cynthia McKinney on the left. Even somebody like Bernie Sanders can’t really run as who he is (a democratic socialist) because of our outmoded very narrow two-party definitions of “acceptability”. The best he can do is run as the non-committal “independent” candidate.

What people who really want to see more diversity in the voices in our politics need to do is two-fold.

First, they need to start at the bottom and work up. You have to have someone to caucus with to be a power-broker, but unless you have a large-scale locally-based infrastructure to support you, you’re not going to have that. So greens or constitutionalists, or whatever your political persuasion, need to begin by winning local elections, and working up from there. You need to have the long view. Like 30 years before you start making large-scale impact. If you don’t have the stomach for that, you pretty much need to shut up about whining about our system. It’s going to take long-term commitment to change it.

Second, and most importantly, we need to get the option of run-off voting into every election both national and local, including the Presidency.

In a non-parliamentary system like ours we can’t create “coalition” governments from two smaller parties the way they can in Canada, or Germany, or France, etc. So the solution to this is run-off voting. This allows you to vote for the candidate you REALLY want (ie. the TRUE Liberal or TRUE Conservative) that the larger, more stick-in-the-mud party elites may not want, without sacrificing your vote if that person doesn’t get a majority, because your vote then automatically defaults to your SECOND choice.

In other words, If your first choice doesn’t get enough of a percentage of the votes to win, your vote defaults to your second choice. Using the last couple Presidential elections as an example, say you want Ron Paul, but you don’t want to throw your vote away to John Kerry, so if Paul doesn’t get enough votes, your FINAL vote gets counted for your second choice, George Bush.

This works the same way on the left. If you REALLY want Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, you can vote for them, and have your vote go to Al Gore or Barack Obama if they don’t gain a majority, and not fear that your vote will get tossed and give George Bush an edge.